Obama Tries To Dial Down Tensions And Fallout From Racial Dust-Ups

Comments (95)

blackstar wrote on January 26, 2008 12:25 PM:

thankfully, Bob Herbert expressed much of what was to be said about the campaigns the past few weeks.

but Greg, why does Hillary's "fact hub" have links to your blog and posts in EC; the only blog-based news site thus referenced?

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

DML wrote on January 26, 2008 12:25 PM:

We dial it up, we dial it down...as required depending on the upcoming primaries.

blackstar wrote on January 26, 2008 12:29 PM:

oh, and about Herbert's column: what's the difference between using named interviewees expressing their opinion of a candidate and using online comments or e-mails expressing their opinion of a candidate?

journalists use quotes from interviewed people to underscore points made in articles all the time. does it really matter if its online or in person?

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 12:29 PM:

blackstar, all the campaigns routinely send out releases and research with quotes from a whole range of news sources and blogs -- all the campaigns have quoted us at one time or another. reading anything into that is a massive stretch, to put it charitably.

Mike wrote on January 26, 2008 12:30 PM:

Greg,
You're misrepresenting what Herbert wrote. He used that blog posting to highlight that "The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago", which is obviously true. I agree that it's dumb to use blog postings to make that point, but he certainly didn't use it to "bash Bill and Hillary as racists".

Shelly wrote on January 26, 2008 12:34 PM:

Can we PLEASE get back to issues that are actually of importance to our country?!?!

Barack has a comprehensive "Blueprint For America" where he identifies the problems facing our country, digs to the root cause of those problems, and offers up specific, thougt-out, comprehensive plans for beginning to solve these problems in a REAL way - not with a sounds good, band-aid, temporary fix-it solutions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues

If you're interested in actually learning about the candidates issues - this is the best compilation of ideas I've found.

Barack is a leader that get things done and a thoughtful problem solver, and everything in his adult history backs that up. Is he perfect? Hell no, but you can't possibly look at his past and question his sincerity, integrity, and love for this country and all it should get back to standing for...

John McCutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 12:35 PM:

As a shill, Greg Sargent is pretty low rent.

The latest example - his disingenuous, thoroughly misleading precis of Bob Herbert's column in the NyT.

"HE USED EMAILS BLOGS!" to make his point.

But what point? THat the Clintons were racist?

No. Read the column.

That the Clintons were reaping the whirlwind of their persistent and not-so-subtle race baiting of the past few weeks

The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics.

Consider, for example, the following Web posting (misspellings and all) from a mainstream news blog on Jan. 13:

“omg people get a grip. Can you imagine calling our president barak hussien obama ... I cant, I pray no one would be disrespectful enough to put this man in our whitehouse.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign was always going to be difficult, and the climb is even steeper now. There is no reason to feel sorry for him. He’s a politician out of Chicago who must have known that campaigns often degenerate into demolition derbies.
Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.
It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.
What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?
These are questions that need to be answered. Stay tuned.

blackstar wrote on January 26, 2008 12:36 PM:

blackstar, all the campaigns routinely send out releases and research with quotes from a whole range of news sources and blogs -- all the campaigns have quoted us at one time or another. reading anything into that is a massive stretch, to put it charitably.

------------

i recognize that, but the links involved are more than just a passing reference, they are there permanently to make the case for a particular "Hillary fact". actually, unless i'm quite mistaken, you are the only author cited twice in links on that page.

the implication being that the Clinton supporters who run the website obviously think there's a "soft shoulder" to cry on in your blog and postings. which of course is a vital part of campaign spin.

John McCutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 12:37 PM:

Am certainly with Shelly on this as is Barack, but when you are running against the President and his First Lady and they want to play in the sewer, you have to remind Americans what they're all about

blackstar wrote on January 26, 2008 12:39 PM:

of course, it could be simple coincidence...

(last post, promise)

kjoe wrote on January 26, 2008 12:39 PM:

What is the deal with you guys and your poll watch?

No national numbers from Rasmussen today?

Missouri, Alabama, and the crucial, all-important, Hillary is inevitable figures from Florida? Florida? Florida?

Thanks for the impossible to meet expectations figures from South Carolina---by the way---Rasmussen----notional--a 12 point Hillary lead from 3 days ago is now 3. nationally. I wonder what caused that? Normal rasmussen fluctuations?

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 12:41 PM:

you guys will defend anything. Herbert says the Clintons "know what they're doing," then decries their "slimy maneuvers" and "low life tactics," then says...

"consider, FOR EXAMPLE" ... then quotes the blog comment.

then he says that the clintons are "gleeful" in the environment that that email represents. he is saying that they're happy that this polarization exists, which is effectively calling them racists.

now, I really don't care if Herbert wants to point to what the Clintons or their surrogates say and argue that they are racist. that's fine.

but to use a blog comment like this is indefensible, sorry. kind of stunning that anyone would defend the sort of tactic we see on Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly and Little Green Footballs.

John McCutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 12:42 PM:

Perhaps it would be best if Hillary ran against Mitt.

At least Mitt's more honest with his sleaze

Remember this???

http://thephoenix.com/MediaLog/content/binary/0720_brookshire_obama.jpg

Herbert could have used this just as easily, and to more effect WRT Kerrey's swiftboating of Barack Hussein Osama

Worth 1000 words (Greg should try)
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/2/9/329bbf970887048f5fe743f9269b3a5b.jpg

John McCutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 12:45 PM:

Oh please Greg...spare us the Bill O'Reilly ad hominem

Inapposite

But at least Sargent's admitted the fundamental dishonesty of his two prior posts

That's progress

Dave wrote on January 26, 2008 12:46 PM:

"I think it offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act." This doesn't constitute Obama himself making the charge.

But that's not a charge of "racism", anyway. Just because black people are offended doesn't mean the initial comments were racist, and doesn't mean the offense was drawn out because of "racism".

Some black folks were offended by Clinton's comments regarding the role of MLK, but that wasn't because they thought she was being racist, it was because they felt she was diminishing the accomplishments of someone who is a hero in black communities throughout the US.

I might say "Jerry Lewis sucks" and upset a whole bunch of French people who love Jerry Lewis, but that wouldn't make my comments in any way anti-French.

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 12:46 PM:

On reflection, I actually agree with you that saying Herbert called them outright racists is a bit overstated, so I toned that line down.

I don't want that to distract from my basic case, which stands: This is an unacceptable tactic.

rg wrote on January 26, 2008 12:46 PM:

I am hoping that we can start an upswing out of that sewer we have been in. It would be so great if we could get back to that feeling between Iowa and NH when the Democratic Party felt special. When we were exciting, uplifting and attracting new people and young people to our party. Obama does that. I'm hoping he gets one of his moments again - like the JJ dinner, like the speech after the Iowa win. He's the candidate that does that time after time. Maybe, we can get back to that. It's so much more than the squabbles and the media story of the day. There is still a real opportunity here.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 12:48 PM:

Herbert referred to Andrew Young

Bill's Had More Black Women Than Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=breSVtVYSmo

Zombie Master wrote on January 26, 2008 12:49 PM:

No, Herbert did not "bash Bill and Hillary as racists." He highlighted the fact that their surrogates are using low-life tactics (e.g. Bob Kerry helping to direct anti-Muslim sentiment at a Christian candidate with an Islamic name) and that these tactics seem to be having the desired effect, as evidenced by the anti-Muslim (not necessarily "racist") email posting. Your interpretation of Herbert's column is tendentious and you're analysis is not to be trusted.

Mike wrote on January 26, 2008 12:52 PM:

Greg,

Wow. Are you serious? Do you really think we're that stupid?

Your distortion of Herbert's editorial is much worse than anything Herbert did.

Why didn't you post Herbert's full sentence before he said "consider, for example"? It's because it gives a completely different picture than your embarassing cluster of partial quotes.

Here's the full sentence: "But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics."

So he was citing that quote as an example of the damage these attacks have had on Obama and the benefit that has to Clinton.

Sure, using blog comments is lazy, but distorting someone's words as you did here is much worse. It's dishonest.

VALawyer wrote on January 26, 2008 12:59 PM:

I don't agree with the people who suggest that Josh (or Eric, for that matter) have been tilted in one way or another with their coverage. But Greg has been consistently pro-Hillary and consistently disparaging of Obama. Isn't this what your personal blog is for?

paul wrote on January 26, 2008 1:00 PM:

C'mon Greg - be serious. Herbert's column simply used a blog quote to indicate the point he was making that we are more divided than we were two months ago. Columnists do that all the time - taking from one example to make a general point - it's not that logical, but what's the big deal. And Obama questioning comments about MLK is not stating that they were racist. I am having a hard time taking your arguments seriously - they are so weak.

John McCutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 1:01 PM:

My momma used to tell me "if you have nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all"

Never did quite get that, so I'll try.

Greg, at least you're no Rachael Madow...more of the Larry Johnson, Keith Olbermann ilk and almost as widely known

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 1:03 PM:

one of the really strange things about the tiny minority of Obama supporters who are ruining blog comment sections throughout the blogosphere is this: They are simply never satisfied.

For example, in the above post I say that Obama IS RIGHT in saying that he never accused the Clintons of racism. And I approvingly quote Obama dialing down the racial tensions here.

But no one notices these things. Instead, all we hear are the same old "bias" screams. It's just pathetic. It makes you wonder whether all the screaming is purely about gaming the refs.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 1:05 PM:

Greg....there is no reasoning with the Obama people....TPM has created a monster that you people are stuck with. You reap what you sew.

JC wrote on January 26, 2008 1:06 PM:

Yeah sorry Greg but I read the Herbert article (after you posted it here) and I understood the blog comment to be representative of the bile that has been directed at obama of late and to underscore the fact that Kerrey's comments were not innocuous. I think whether the Clinton's are engaged in these tactics is a debatable point--Penn's performance after Hillary's apology for Shaheen's comments happened to send up a few red flag for me, especialy given the Clinton's reputation heretofore for message control, but I am sure her supporters see it as a foolish statement by Shaheen and an overzealous Penn. That is fine. There was nothing wrong--to my mind--with Obama calling into question the pattern of statements by Clinton surrogates, especially since he raised concerns in the context of making a larger argument about the importance of taking staff and surrogates to task for cheap shots. He also backed it up by taking personal responsibility for the D-Punjab memo and taking the SC staffer who gave reporters a research document full of questionable statements made by surrogates. I agree with those readers who would like the debate to move on--the idea that Obama only has support in the black community or that he is the black candidate is laughable and the idea the Bill Clinton is a racist is also absurd. But I disagree with your assertion that Herbert broke all boundaries of journalistic integrity: the comment was meant to be representative of political discourse off the rails, and to suggest that if there was a coordinated plan by the Clintons to knock Obama off message it has come at a heavy cost.

John McCutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 1:07 PM:

Things could be much worse, much

Greg's no Taylor Marsh and for that we all should be grateful

But he's no Eric Kleefeld either (beat still)

Mike wrote on January 26, 2008 1:08 PM:

Greg,

Your refusal to accept that you were being dishonest here is what is angering us.

Also, your attempt to deflect this criticism by attacking anonymous commenters here is quite ironic I must say.

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 1:09 PM:

I don't know how much clearer I can be. If you want to hit the Clintons for stuff or their surrogates say, that's fine. Totally legit.

But to take an anonymous blog posting and use it to portray an atmosphere that the Clintons want and are "gleeful" about is completely indefensible. It's the sort of thing Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly do regularly. It's total BS.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 26, 2008 1:12 PM:

Obama won Iowa, got 36% of the white vote in NH and 34% in NV. He can get white votes in the midwest, northeast and west... It should not be a surprise that he's going to struggle with whites in a state that still adores the confederate flag.

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 1:15 PM:

Mike: I agree that I overstated the case, revise accordingly, and then you ask me to admit that I was "dishonest"?

Weird.

Everyone's tired of your anger. Stop it already. It's boring.

Dave wrote on January 26, 2008 1:15 PM:

For example, in the above post I say that Obama IS RIGHT in saying that he never accused the Clintons of racism. And I approvingly quote Obama dialing down the racial tensions here.

All good points, though I think it's important to note that the concern over Hillary's MLK-comments weren't concerns that she was being racist (though I don't deny that's how it was seen by some zealous Obama supporters) but more, as Obama says, concern that she had diminished the role of a hero to many African Americans.

Accusing Hillary of diminishing King's accomplishments is a lot different than accusing Hillary of being a racist. So while you correctly point out Obama only mentioned this concern had been made, I think it's incorrect to label that concern a "charge" of racism itself.

Mike wrote on January 26, 2008 1:17 PM:

Greg,

No one here is saying that Herbert was right to use blog comments as evidence.

What they're saying is that you're distorting what he used those comments as evidence for.

Just because his comments are "indefensible" doesn't make you immune to criticism of how you misrepresented his column.

terry hallinan wrote on January 26, 2008 1:17 PM:

On reflection, I actually agree with you that saying Herbert called them outright racists is a bit overstated, so I toned that line down.

I don't want that to distract from my basic case, which stands: This is an unacceptable tactic.

Thank you, Greg - and you're still wrong. :-)

If one usea an isolated poster's comment to illustrate a point and labels it as such, I don't see how it is unfair.

If Hebert had claimed more than that, I would join you in denouncing his column as the tactic of a Fox News.

As it is, you are the one making a rather ugly odious association.

Undoubtedly Hebert's column was strong stuff. Unfortunately I think it reflected reality.

Best, Terry

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 1:24 PM:

Mike: Let's see if we're capable of keeping two ideas in our heads at the same time. Ready?

Idea number one: Herbert didn't explicitly charge that the Clintons are racists.

Idea number two: Herbert did resort to the indefensible tactic of using a single blog comment to tar the Clintons by saying that the comment is indicative of an atmosphere that the Clintons worked to create and are "gleeful" about.

This is a slimy insinuation game that is beneath the Op ed page of the Times. It's that simple.

There's no question that Obama himself would completely reject the insinuations in this column.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 26, 2008 1:27 PM:

The blog comment shows the benefit of the surrogates.. I don't see where Greg gets "gleeful."

NoBoy wrote on January 26, 2008 1:30 PM:

Greg, you will only escape the fury of the Obamaniacal forces by downing the drug laced soda and screaming EVIL BITCH HILLARY until the day she dies. Period.
By their insufferable sanctimony shall ye know them....

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 1:34 PM:

herbert himself wrote that the clintons "seemed gleeful" about the atmosphere created:

“omg people get a grip. Can you imagine calling our president barak hussien obama ... I cant, I pray no one would be disrespectful enough to put this man in our whitehouse.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign was always going to be difficult, and the climb is even steeper now. There is no reason to feel sorry for him. He’s a politician out of Chicago who must have known that campaigns often degenerate into demolition derbies.

Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.

pacc wrote on January 26, 2008 1:34 PM:

More O-Bomb-A b.s.

Dumbass Barry made a big deal about how he would help the Dems carry the South... not if white voters won't vote for him!

It's 2 minutes to midnight for the O-Bomb-A campaign.

Good riddance.

terry hallinan wrote on January 26, 2008 1:38 PM:

Greg:

Idea number one: Herbert didn't explicitly charge that the Clintons are racists.

How do you figure?

When George Wallace declared he would never be out-segged again, I guess he didn't declare he believed in segregation but it seemed to me like racism.

What the heck is your definition of racism?

There's no question that Obama himself would completely reject the insinuations in this column.

Of course he would. He must.

But gosh, Greg, facts are facts.

"Boy, don't you know you have no business with white folks' presidency? Maybe some day you folks will have your turn."

Bill Clinton didn't say that but that is the import of what I am hearing about the "kid."

I detest tribal politics. Obama rather obviously can't play the dirty game. It's to the Clintons advantage and they are playing it for all its worth.

Best, Terry

scruncher wrote on January 26, 2008 1:39 PM:

You have misrepresented Herbert's column. Why not just link to it and let people decide for themselves?

That wouldn't pump up hits to your site, though, would it? Why does every reference to an outside story on TPM go through three pages on TPM instead of to the source material?

Nell wrote on January 26, 2008 1:39 PM:

I guess truth is out of fashion.
The Clintons didn't do the race thing, the MSM did.
And Obama bought it.
In fact the media is turning this election year into a circus of pundit acts that fly in the face of truth and logic.

Zombie Master wrote on January 26, 2008 1:39 PM:

"Racist blog?" "Gleeful about racism?" You still don't get it. If you change the language of your post to say that Herbert cited an "anti-Muslim blog" to claim that the Clintons are "pleased with the environment of increasing sectarian tension" your comments will cease to be a wild distortion of Herbert's editorial.

anatol wrote on January 26, 2008 1:43 PM:

If you're asking who inserted race into the campaign - ask the 2,000-years old question - who benefits? Who benefits from talking about race AFTER Iowa and NH, but BEFORE Nevada and SC? Hint: not Hillary.

And why nobody is willing to bring up perhaps the most disgusting moment of the Dem campaign so far: Obama's national co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. hours after NH sending out obviously scripted and prepared dog whistle signal that Hillary is a racist:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA

Chris wrote on January 26, 2008 1:45 PM:

The tactic is awful. Its cherry picking. A person can look for evidence to support his or her argument, but if you can only find an anonymous blog post to support your argument then its an incredibly weak argument. The column's point is weak because of this and the columnist then goes on to gleefully slime the Clintons which seems the point. I don't like the Clintons either but the columnist should have supported his point with more evidence.

hwc wrote on January 26, 2008 1:46 PM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA

frankly0 wrote on January 26, 2008 1:49 PM:

However, Obama's interviewer on NBC did say that the Illinois Senator acknowledged that surrogates on both sides had pushed the race story along.

What does it mean to say that a party on one side of the debate "acknowledged" that surrogates on bothsides had done this? How can a party on side "acknowledge" (which here basically means "admit") that the other side did something wrong? At best he can acknowledge it only for his own side.

And of course the real difficulty for the Obama campaign is that their campaign was caught red-handed trying to foster racial resentment in African Americans -- how on earth could they possibly pretend they weren't involved.

The the situation is certainly NOT symmetric. There is no smoking gun or anything like it on the Clinton side. The best the Obama side was able to come up with was a comment here or there that someone might think was meant as a racial remark. And those comments were in almost all cases from people not directly involved in the campaign, but instead were simply supporters. And how hard is it, if you're bound and determined to find a pattern of racial remarks, to look at the thousands and thousands of sentences or phrases uttered by supporters and find an instance here or there of something that may seem dubious? That is exactly the kind of crazy reasoning that propels every conspiracy theory in history, and makes it seem persuasive to the gullible.

So, yes, the Obama side DID get caught inflaming racial tensions. The Clinton side absolutely did not. That is simple fact.

And yet how much does either the media or TPM ever bring up this point? If you are going to reach for the vapors everytime rough tactics get used, and go on moral crusade about it, as TPM has done with the supposed voter suppression in NV and the outrage of seating the FL and MI delegates, don't you think the deliberate inflaming of racial tensions might count as worthy of an explicit denunciation?

If anyone ever wanted evidence of what a free ride Obama gets both from the press and TPM, this would be exhibit A. And the trashing the Clinton campaign gets over its far less reprehensible behavior would be exhibit A in the case for Clinton hatred both in the media and, again, TPM.

Matt A wrote on January 26, 2008 1:50 PM:

Reagan comparisons are popular these days so I'll put out another. In my opinion, neither the Clintons nor Reagan are (were) racists. Both, however, use race as a wedge issue to their advantage. The Clintons may be less overt than Reagan was but there is a consistent pattern of Clinton campaign supporters playing to fear-based black man stereotypes. This sort of race-based power-play is extremely frustrating to me because the standard-bearers for the Democratic party should be better than that.

frankly0 wrote on January 26, 2008 1:56 PM:

And why nobody is willing to bring up perhaps the most disgusting moment of the Dem campaign so far: Obama's national co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. hours after NH sending out obviously scripted and prepared dog whistle signal that Hillary is a racist:

This is another case in which the Obama campaign engages in something that TPM, and its resident pompous sermonizer Josh Marshal would have reacted to with his highest moral outrage -- had it been perpetrated by the Clinton campaign.

Because it was the Obama campaign, though, never mind!

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 26, 2008 2:00 PM:

As Joe Conason pointed out in his column in today's
Salon.com Obama supporters cannot tolerate
any criticism of him.

The people who have mainly pushed the race theme
have been the likes of Bob Herbert, Eugene
Robinson and interestingly Chris Matthews and a
host of White journalists.

When Charlie Rangel, Andrew Young, Bob Johnson and
The Amsterdam News endorse you you don't have
much to worry about in regard to racism charges
especially when made by Whites.

gcs wrote on January 26, 2008 2:03 PM:

Edwards was right. You all sound like children.

Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 26, 2008 2:03 PM:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm an Obama supporter who thinks Greg does a good job. Thanks, Greg. This is beginning to sound like the vitriol that Joe Klein takes at Swampland. I'm not advocating for JK, and I'm all for the back-and-forth, but going straight for "dishonest" and stuff like that is over-the-top.

frankly0 wrote on January 26, 2008 2:04 PM:

Remember: Jesse Jackson Jr was the national co-chair of Obama's campaign. The infamous memo from SC came directly from Obama's campaign.

Those are the sort of connections that Josh Marshall would have used to eviscerate the Clinton campaign in many long-winded editorials had they been found guilty of using such techniques. How much more direct can you get than a memo from the campaign, and the national co-chair?

Instead, hardly a peep out of Marshall and TPM.

Of course, this was the same guy who couldn't resist going along with the Washington in crowd when it came to the Iraq war. He's going to make an unpopular call when it comes to condemning Obama?

As if.

Ross wrote on January 26, 2008 2:07 PM:

I'm watching carefully for evidence that my preference for Obama is a mistake. Like many voters, I don't want to be taken in by what may turn out to be superficial appeal. So I am watching like a hawk for clues that I need to stop supporting him. This is a very open-minded process on my part. And I love TPM - always have, long before the candidates announced. Greg is being unfair to Obama. Herbert says the Clinton's are benefiting from (and gleeful about) the polarized atmosphere. I think that is a widely accepted opinion. My copy of the Times doesn't say the Clintons are gleeful about racism. They are gleeful about polarization. Greg is distorting - not Herbert. Sorry to have to say it.

Byron wrote on January 26, 2008 2:08 PM:

Why are people blaming the Clintons for racism in the US? There are black people who are voting for Barack because he is black. Is that racism? A lot of whites and hispnaics will not ever vote for him no matter what. It is not the Clintons fault that people were offended by their comments and called them racist. Obama waited 2 week to say that he didn't feel their comments were racist. Why did he wait? He wanted to reap the benenfits of it. So he got what he wanted. He got the black vote, but has hurt his chances with other demograhpics.

Ann wrote on January 26, 2008 2:10 PM:

I must be really dense because I don't see how this is a dialing down. It seems pretty tame and a tad bit self-serving. But hey this is politics folks it ain't bean bag. The Herbert column was pretty bad but so was the King column in the Post. Who's dialing what?

paul wrote on January 26, 2008 2:16 PM:

Greg,

The problem I have with this post and with all the articles about race is that the more it is talked about the more it benefits the Clinton's. The question is "who benefits?" And the articles take on the depressing tone of "will all this talk about race affect the campaign and help the Clinton's and hurt Obama?" - let's talk about it some more and write lots more articles to find out.

The conflating of Herbert's citation of a single quote with the Clinton's gleefulness is unfair IMHO. What is beyond a doubt is that nastier the campaign gets, the more the Clinton's benefit - her negatives are already high, so dragging Obama down is their goal. And from reading the comments of visitors to this site, I think Herbert has a valid point about the increasingly divisive tone of the debate, albeit one he could have articulated more effectively.

One more thing: the American press and parts of the blogosphere operate under this myth that reporting can be objective. It's always subjective - just choosing the subject to talk about is subjective and is likely to benefit one side or the other. Yet the pundits who write seem to pretend that it's a "just the facts" presentation. There's no such thing. And what frustrates me is that all this supposedly objective analysis of race is having its own impact on the campaign.

Love you site - and I still think your reasoning today was weak.

Paul

roo_P wrote on January 26, 2008 2:22 PM:

Mmo

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 2:28 PM:

But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics.

What's completely irresponsible about this line from Herbert is the way he merges Clinton's (supposed) "lowlife tactics" with what could well be, and probably is, _pre-existing_ racism and xenophobia. Right-wing kooks were beating the "Barack Hussein Obama" drum long before anyone associated with Clinton mentioned it at all, and in fact the Bob Kerrey remarks in question were a _response_ to innuendo _that was already circulating_.

What's even worse is that his smoking-gun anonymous web post, at least as he uses it, is anti-Obama _but not at all pro-Clinton_. To _begin_ to make his point he'd need to find a post saying "omg Obamas a muslom vote Hillary."

What I wish all the Obama supporters would realize, and what Herbert must know but doesn't do here, is that "anti-Obama" and "pro-Clinton" are two distinct positions. Yes, they have some overlap. But, you know, there are plenty of racist dillweeds in the world, and the vast majority of them are Republicans, not Clinton supporters.

dcshungu wrote on January 26, 2008 2:31 PM:

As soon as the furor over Hillary's historically accurate reference to MLK's and LBJ's respective roles in getting landmark Civil Rights legislation passed into law erupted, I had cautioned that the Obama camp was making a huge mistake. After losing two contests in a row, the Obama camp did not want to take any chances in SC, so they stoked the racial fire to ensure that SC blacks would peel away from Hillary and back him in droves, ensuring victory. Similarly, Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment was elevated to the level a capital offense against African-Americans. The media, which were just itching to inject campaign 2008 with racial overtones but were reticent to do so blatantly, were given an opening and they got into the act, Big Time...they ran away with it, the frenzy feeding on itself, as usual. Now, belatedly, Obama has just realized what I had warned about: He'll win the battle in SC but lose the war, because he would have no chance of winning the nomination if the contest becomes racially polarized. He'll become the "black candidate", a la Jesse Jackson. Whites outnumber blacks by 8-10 to 1, so that Obama would be crushed almost everywhere if the contest becomes racially polarized. Unfortunately for him, the genie is now out of the bottle and it will be very hard to put back in. He can only hope that his win today in SC will not be a blow out because of a disproportionate black vote, with almost no white votes... The narrative has already been written, only the actual numbers are lacking... until tonight. Stay tuned.

readytoblowagasket wrote on January 26, 2008 2:32 PM:

Greg is right.

Herbert's use of an anonymous blogger comment is completely invalid. It's not just LAZY, which is bad enough. Highlighting the quote is invalid because the quote doesn't PROVE what Herbert claims it does, which is: "But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics."

1) Herbert reveals no cause-effect relationship between the blog comment and anything the Clinton camp/surrogates have ever said. Since there is no demonstrable connection between the two, why use the quote?

2) The Jan. 13 blog comment doesn't prove "real damage" to Obama. In fact, Herbert never provides proof that Obama has in fact been damaged. So again, why use the quote?

3) The comment doesn't prove Clinton will be the beneficiary of the commenter's vote.

4) The blog commenter is obviously a Republican.

Yet Herbert uses his own privileged and prominent platform to announce:
"Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife’s candidacy, has at times sounded like a man who’s gone off his medication."

Funny, but such "lowlife" slanderous remarks are exactly what Herbert decries of the Clintons. Herbert's own opinion has been (to use his words) "undermined by a deliberate injection of ugliness."

omg Herbert, get a grip.

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 2:34 PM:

Herbert says the Clinton's are benefiting from (and gleeful about) the polarized atmosphere. I think that is a widely accepted opinion.

The idea that the Clinton campaign is strategically attempting to polarize along racial lines relies on a substantial amount of assumptions and innuendo. Instead of inquiring into whether they're, you know, accurate, Herbert just wants to circulate them some more.

At a meta-level, if the "widely accepted opinion" that the Clintons are benefiting from and gleeful about polarization takes root, doesn't that make it the case that _Obama_ will be benefiting from (and perhaps gleeful about) the way the story's being told?

Dave wrote on January 26, 2008 2:40 PM:

I'm really taken aback by Greg's column.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/new_york_times_13.php

Wow. For the second time that I can remember in five years of reading TPM (the first time was when Josh stupidly endorsed Ken Pollack's jingoist book and the invasion of Iraq), I'm appalled.

Bob Herbert used a quote for color -- one of thousands of such quotes that any of us could find, including the quotes that often accompany the infamous spam email attacking Obama's roots. (You know, the email that appeared on millions of computers and that Hillary's camp claims they had nothing to do with?) Big. Frigging. Deal.

Would you be happier, Greg, if he'd done a statistical content analysis of all blog comments? Do you doubt that the quote is legitimate, or that those sentiments are not shared in certain quarters?

I've just put down Mark Penn's book, and Penn's strategy is exactly as Herbert has described -- slicing and dicing 'consumers' (qua voters) into smaller, predictable sections. Not uniting them, not building bridges among them, not forming a consensus, but dividing.

Contrast that with the bizarre venom in Greg's column:

Here's an idea. How about we all agree to stop cherry-picking anonymous and reprehensible comments from blogs to make or score points?

So Greg begins with condescension ("Here's an idea"), and quickly moves into accusing Herbert of cherry-picking to score points.

This is as transparently bogus a tactic as you can imagine.

Now Herbert, according to Greg Sargent (blogger), uses "as transparently bogus a tactic as you can imagine." I see.

Greg then makes some leaps of logic, putting words in Herbert's mouth and then attacking these straw-men words. He then concludes:

Sorry, this is thoroughly bogus -- it's indefensible, in fact.

Let's see, how many more scurrilous adjectives can we heap on Herbert for no justifiable reason? How about "thoroughly bogus" and "indefensible"? Yeah, those are good!

this to score points is straying deep into Michelle Malkin territory. It's kind of surprising to see so rank a tactic
You go, Greg, that bile-thesaurus must be handy. "Straying deep into Malkin territory," "so rank a tactic", yeah!

Go, Greg, you can do more!

This guilt-by-association trick isn't genuinely informative in any way. It's about scoring points, pure and simple. Really, it's as cheap as it gets. It says far more about the user of the tactic than it does about the target.

Atta-boy! Use the very tactics you're accusing Herbert of against him! "Guilt-by-association": Clark Hoyt, Michelle Malkin, Bob Herbert, they're all the same. Can you imagine how bad Herbert is? He "isn't genuinely informative in any way." He's just "scoring points." How bad is Herbert, one asks? Tell us, Greg! "It's as cheap as it gets." Oh, baby, don't stop! Your razor-sharp insight and journalistic chops are killng us. One last go, can you maybe turn Herbert's words against him in an ad hominem attack? Please? C'mon, Greg, you can do it!

It says far more about the user of the tactic than it does about the target.

Greg, you putz.

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 2:44 PM:

I still don't know why the prevailing attitude about Bill Clinton's role in the campaign is that he's been "over the top" or vicious. Why, because he says "Give me a break" in an exasperated way? He's been making the case that Obama is, in his opinion, inexperienced and buoyed up by a credulous and star-struck media. Neither of those is a shady thing to say, even if they are "negative" in a general way.

The campaign-trail pieces from the major corporate media have been overwhelmingly awful. I hope that one of the lessons of this campaign will be that we should always be deeply skeptical of the way pundits and reporters frame the stories they tell, and never rush to embrace them just because their narratives redound to the benefits of the same candidate we're supporting.

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 2:49 PM:

Um, the Herbert piece _is_ thoroughly bogus and indefensible, whether it helps your guy or not. Because he's using the blog comment to substantiate that Clinton has been helped by the "polarizing" tone, but there's nothing in the comment indicating that Clinton is helped, only that Obama is hurt, and ignores the possibility that _other_ groups and interests have a deep investment in running down Obama, not just the Clinton campaign.

rabbit wrote on January 26, 2008 2:49 PM:

I like Bob Herbert, but I was disappointed in this column for another reason. "Madrassa" just means school in Arabic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasah

There is in fact such a thing as a secular madrassa. To be careful about this doesn't have to detract from the critique of Kerrey's insinuations (actually, it would make the critique more precise).

frankly0 wrote on January 26, 2008 2:51 PM:

Bob Herbert used a quote for color -- one of thousands of such quotes that any of us could find, including the quotes that often accompany the infamous spam email attacking Obama's roots.

Look, among other things, the problem with blog comments is that you can find ugly, vicious comments to make any person or position look like its supporters are vile, and that the person or position has made the vermin come out of the woodwork. And it is infinitely worse when the comments that are used are anonymous. I mean, the man couldn't get a real live person to go on record to make the point? What does that say about Herbert's effort here, or his ability to establish his point?

To pretend to be oblivious to this fact about blog comments is I should think pretty unforgivable in a NY Times columnist.

It's just the cheapest of shots.

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 2:54 PM:

the infamous spam email attacking Obama's roots. (You know, the email that appeared on millions of computers and that Hillary's camp claims they had nothing to do with?)

God knows, crazy right-wingers never circulate spam emails. It was probably the Clinton campaign who sent the picture of John Kerry and Jane Fonda sitting together, and it was probably the long-term-planning branch of the Clinton campaign who started writing those pieces about the "Clinton body count" and CIA drug-running through Mena airport I was being forwarded throughout the 1990s. After all, the Clinton campaign benefits from a polarizing tone, so those are certainly part of the overarching strategy. Is there nothing to which the Clinton campaign will not stoop?

Killjoy wrote on January 26, 2008 2:55 PM:

So, yes, the Obama side DID get caught inflaming racial tensions. The Clinton side absolutely did not. That is simple fact.

"secular madrassa"

"shuck and jive"

"Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack."

"Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?"

"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book - when they have been involved."

"That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, 'I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.' And I'm thinking, I'm thinking to myself, this ain't a movie, Sidney. This is real life."

NCSteve wrote on January 26, 2008 2:56 PM:

Greg,

I absolutely agree that it is wrong for someone in the MSM to attribute bile from the comments section of a blog to the actual bloggers. That is a rightous fight which, incidentally, the bloggers seem to be winning lately.

However, I wonder whether that very right-minded sentiment isn't misleading you into error in this case. Herbert was not attributing the commenter's comment to the blog (a mainstream news blog, he called it, which I interpret to mean an MSM reporter's blog). He was, instead, using that comment as an example of what he believes an uptick in polarization that, in his opinion, is being deliberately pumped up by the Clintons.

If you perceive that there has been an uptick in overtly racist rants in blog comments, are you allowed to talk about that or is that, in itself, a forbidden topic unless you can prove it with a scientifically valid statistical survey?

I ask, because, in the last couple of weeks, I have definitely noticed a surge of such filth over the last three weeks. Not here, and not at Kos or anywhere in the reality-based part of the blogosphere, but I've definitely seen it in the comments of the MSM reporter's blogs and in the comment sections on news stories. Late last night, I clicked a link to an AP story about the race factor in this race that was posted on CBS's website and was quite litereally stunned at vile, evil, garbage I saw. The kind of vile, sick-minded filth one used to see on crudely printed Klan pamphlets back in the pre-Internet days. Literally stunned. I just sat in open-mouthed disbelief. CBS has scrubbed it all since then, but it was there, and I've been seeing more and more of it and its been getting progressively worse since Billy Sheehan injected the "dealer" smear into the narrative.

It is, in my opinion and, apparently in Herbert's real. If it's real, it is important and it does need to be talked about. And in talking about it, I don't think its unfair to offer up a sample of the ugliness as an exhibit. I also do not think it is useful, or appropriate, to offer up more than one or two of them at a time.

Finally, let's talk a bit about your shot at what you correctly characterize as a subset of Obama supporters. There are, unquestionably, a number of Obama supporters posting here, and elsewhere, who are so deeply afflicted by partisan brain syndrome that they've lost all ability to engage in critical thinking or perceive any nuance or shade of grey. I've also noticed several bloggers (you and Ben Smith, for example) expressing irritation at them for their intransigent, never satisfied, ways.

What I've also noticed, however, is that there are just as many pro-Hillary posters here, and elsewhere, who are likewise so deeply afflicted by partisan brain syndrome that they've lost all ability to engage in critical thinking or perceive nuance or shade of grey. And yet, they don't ever seem to irritate you at all, even when they scream at you for your, and TPM's "pro-Obama" bias.

My point isn't that you're actually biased. For all I know, Obama's Koolaid bingers may, in fact, be more irritating to non-aligned observers than Hillary's. It would make a great masters thesis for someone to find out why (if they didn't mind not actually getting the degree from their committee, that is).

No, my actual point is that your shot at the Obama posters was not unrelated to the conduct by Herbert that you condemn. Just sayin'.

roo_P wrote on January 26, 2008 3:02 PM:

Greg,

Looks like with the corrections the story reads better. I think it is idiotic to accuse the Clintons of racism* but at the same time, I do not think that was the point of Herbert's article. I actually disagree with Herbert, too, but some seem to be conflating his 'example' with 'proof.' I think Herbert is simply illustrating his point that low-information voters were impacted, not making it.

This also goes to why I asked Obama voters to stop worrying about Clinton and Clinton supporters earlier. It diverts our positive energy into negative energy which is more draining for us depressing morale and the negative approach is, obviously, less likely to attract new supporters.

One thing I have recently had to remind myself of is that this is the Democratic primary. To me it is tremendously surprising to see openly racist comments coming from (supposed) Democratic voters--call it cognitive dissonance if you will, but I did not expect it from our side. But that misses the point.

There is no doubt that the Clintons benefit from the recent issue and, as smart people have pointed out, the benefit is not that the prejudiced are somehow suddenly realising that Obama is a black guy which seems to be what Herbert was going for. The benefit is, mindbogglingly, that some of us vocally decry those sentiments which in turn causes other, usually low-information voters to become defensive, usually unnecessarily (everyone has prejudices, most overcome them given the right circumstances.) Defensiveness is extremely bad for one's ability to process new information which directly benefits the Clinton campaign. I am not going to accuse the campaign for somehow managing to orchestrate all this--but strictly factually, it ends up benefiting them.

What the Clinton campaign is intentionally doing, then, is what is simplistically called "dragging Obama down to their level." The goal, more precisely, is to turn the enthusiasm many of us feel into negative feelings and actions instead. First, this is bad for our morale from getting tired and cynical and secondly, it removes the component of positivity that has been so important to Obama's success thus far. It is also intended to depress turnout of the new, infrequent and low-information voters who just come to see this as politics as usual instead of what the promise of engagement and new grassroots-style government that an Obama presidency brings.

In the end, the Clinton tactic is the Republican one to energize the base and depress turnout by removing large swaths of voters because of disaffection which always plays to their strengths.

*(To be snarky, I would just call them clintonists for having equal disdain for all humans not named Bill or Hillary Clinton.)

Jane wrote on January 26, 2008 3:06 PM:

Bill Clinton's Presidency did not divide America on racial lines -- in fact the reverse. Nor would Hillary's. Until Obama's campaign started taking every verbal slip of every possible surrogate and maintaining that this was a deliberate choice by his opponent's campaign, race was not an issue. This was a very deliberate choice by the Obama campaign backed by a four page memo.

America has a racially charged past and certain terms from that past are useful but carry racial baggage. Take the case of the young white sportscaster who is friends with Tiger Woods but when describing how frustrating his golfing competitors found him, she suggested that his opponents would like to 'lynch' him. Clearly, if she had at that time been thinking about Tiger as a black man rather than simply as a brilliant golfer, she would never have made that comment and making that comment did not make her racist although it did show her to be direly insensitive to the historical echoes of her choice of words. Similar slips have occurred in others. Biden comes to mind and Obama stayed above the fray. But these slips were obviously not the result of some Clinton campaign decision. But whenever – and most of the supposed examples are highly debatable – a Clinton supporter makes a similar slip the Obama campaign charges that is an organized tactic of race baiting by the Clinton campaign. Obama then gets all mealy mouth and parades his deniability – I never said the Clintons are racist.

Pretending to be above the fray and having not surrogates – but campaign staff - push investigate your opponent’s spouse’s sex life is more than enough to show who vicious. I would further note that Hillary dismissed her New Hampshire campaign chair before the New Hampshire primary when he crossed a line by adding too much speculation of what attacks the Republicans might raise. This was a considerable cost to her campaign – there are enough higher level surrogates that if she were deliberately trying to float that idea, she didn’t need to burn that high level of a player. Obama, however, didn’t even reprimand Jesse Jackson Jr for his uncalled for remarks concerning Katrina – let alone dismiss him as he should have.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 3:11 PM:

Obama may have come closer than that ... here, for instance:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/308216.aspx
"We have no way of tracing where these e-mails come from, but ... they somehow appear magically wherever the next primary or caucus is"

Or his too-clever-by-half treatment of Hillary's MTP appearance:
"... she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

Or his silent assent to the UNITE HERE radio ads.

It's pure Old Politics: The Candidate hews to the high road in daylight, while marauding surrogates rule the night.

Obama hasn't called them off, or called them out. Is this is an example of his management style -- establishing a Vision and leaving the implementation to subordinates?

Beryl wrote on January 26, 2008 3:18 PM:

Bash Greg and defend Bob Herbert all you want. But Herbert is anti-Clinton. Really, we can read tendentious stuff at Malkin and her cohorts.

Don't sink to their level. Obama is pretty good at taking care of himself. Out of respect for him don't engage in mindless negativism and attack all those who criticise him. Once he is the candidate what do you want us to do? Opt out? We dont need copy cat Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson with their angry rants and general nastiness.

Michael A wrote on January 26, 2008 3:21 PM:

The clintons' campaign is extremely slick. Dust up race for new hampshire to win. Claim that obama is dialing up the race issue, when he avoided it like the plague, and then they play the victim. Down play sc, so that if he wins, he's just another upity african-american like jesse jackson.

Then on the other hand ignore all issues, just vote for h. clinton because she will be the first female president and it will give the clinton team a third term. Forget about her record, forget about everything other than that she is a female, then claim the press isn't covering issues.

They are very, very slick and despicable. However, she will lose the general election and we'll wind up with president mccain and 4 more years of stagnation. I hope the clinton cult is happy.

Webb in 2012.

roo_P wrote on January 26, 2008 3:29 PM:

Anonymous at 3:11pm:

1. As your own link shows, Obama is specifically talking about the "Obama is a terrorist muslim" e-mail lies which he says are a political attack which is clearly true. Furthermore, he says they are concentrated to wherever a primary is which makes sense (although I think it is simply because more people in the area are sending them around.)
These e-mails have never been attributed or insinuated to be from the Clinton campaign since they obviously are not.

2. I never thought the MLK comment was about race, it obviously is not just from the context. But it still hurt a lot of people--white, black and polka-dotted--and rightfully so. Not to diminish LBJ's masterful navigation of the legislative process but to somehow think he was more or even equally important in that historical change is horribly disrespectful and misguided. As Obama stated right after the comment, it is more telling of how Clinton thinks of politics as a top-down, byzantine maze instead of a transparent grass-roots enabling force.

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 3:49 PM:

I've been seeing more and more of it and its been getting progressively worse since Billy Sheehan injected the "dealer" smear into the narrative.

That's one possible root cause. But I think it's more likely that once Obama actually won Iowa, it showed that he had a chance to win the whole shebang. That's why racist caterwauling against Obama might take on a whole new urgency: it was that much more likely he could actually _become_ the president.

To me it is tremendously surprising to see openly racist comments coming from (supposed) Democratic voters

Lean harder on that "supposed." Republican trolls love to infest Democratic precincts on the web. And racists and homophobes were working hard to ruin Usenet newsgroups about _baseball_ in, like, 1998. There's a world of troublemakers out there.

terry hallinan wrote on January 26, 2008 3:51 PM:

Kathleen in Maine writes

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm an Obama supporter who thinks Greg does a good job. Thanks, Greg.

While I disagree most vociferously with Greg in this instance, I would like to echo your sentiments, Kathleen, and thank you for saying it.

Best, Terry

gerry wrote on January 26, 2008 4:12 PM:

Hillary Clinton's MLK comment was most definitely NOT about race, but didn't Obama immediately--and successfully--try to spin it that way? And wasn't this genesis of the whole "race issue"?

artappraiser wrote on January 26, 2008 4:32 PM:

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 1:03 PM: one of the really strange things about the tiny minority of Obama supporters who are ruining blog comment sections throughout the blogosphere is this: They are simply never satisfied.

For example, in the above post I say that Obama IS RIGHT in saying that he never accused the Clintons of racism. And I approvingly quote Obama dialing down the racial tensions here.

But no one notices these things. Instead, all we hear are the same old "bias" screams. It's just pathetic. It makes you wonder whether all the screaming is purely about gaming the refs.

Nod nod.

Also extraordinarily ironic is that they are doing it for a candidate that has not only specifically running against that kind of approach in politics, but has in fact, in the past specifically disparaged this kind of activity in the blogosphere itself. (One example.)

Greg wrote on January 26, 2008 1:15 PM: Mike: I agree that I overstated the case, revise accordingly, and then you ask me to admit that I was "dishonest"?

Weird.

Everyone's tired of your anger. Stop it already. It's boring.

More than weird and boring. I still have no real preference among the three candidates. But the more I read the spew of Obama supporters like this, the more I can't help it sinking into my pysche that a presidency under him will not be pleasant for those interested in reading about politics. It's also very odd that, overall, the Clinton supporters in the blogosphere are so less vitriolic, just into rigid spin.

Keep on keeping on. Obama's on your side, Greg, and, as you probably know from reading the numbers, lots of the non-angry are reading without commenting.

example wrote on January 26, 2008 4:46 PM:

Hillary Clinton's MLK comment was most definitely NOT about race, but didn't Obama immediately--and successfully--try to spin it that way? And wasn't this genesis of the whole "race issue"?

Yes, since every black person is a part of the Obama campaign, any time any black person gets offended about something, it's part of "Obama's Spin".

Seriously, Obama didn't say anything about the MLK comment, a few people outside his campaign did, and Hillary seized on it in order to make it look like Obama was complaining, trying to cast him as the "touchy African American".

Anyway. I think some people need to stop complaining about Greg being pro-Hillary, but I don't quite get why it's so important for liberal blogs to stay "neutral" in an election. We know Josh is anti-Bush, we know he wants to go against Romney in the republican race. You guys should just say who you are for, so that you don't have people bashing you as being biased (one way or the other) every 10 minutes.

example wrote on January 26, 2008 4:56 PM:

There is in fact such a thing as a secular madrassa. To be careful about this doesn't have to detract from the critique of Kerrey's insinuations (actually, it would make the critique more precise).

Not in indonesia, where people speak, um, indonesian.

Saying that Obama attended a "secular madrassa" is no more accurate then saying Hillary Clinton attended one.

Michael A wrote on January 26, 2008 4:57 PM:

Gerry, no. The media tried to play it up and stir the pot. The obama campaign did not say boo. It's that right-wing establishment corporate media which mr. bill keeps feeding and stirring up that is keeping the race issue front and center. Sorry to disappoint you.

frankly0 wrote on January 26, 2008 5:01 PM:

Killjoy,

Kind of telling that not a single case you produce is attributable to the Clinton campaign. These quotes are all from supporters of Clinton. In fact, a good number of them appear to be from African-American supporters of Clinton, who, I should think, are entitled to a bit more license in saying things about African-Americans than others are. (And what would happen if Clinton came down hard denouncing them? Do you really imagine that that too wouldn't have been spun into a show of disrespect to African-Americans?)

But the examples from Obama's side are from the campaign itself. Do you understand that distinction? (Rhetorical question, of course, since it's so inconvenient for you to grasp it).

I don't expect you to get that distinction. But, if the people at, say, TPM weren't idiots they would.

Killjoy wrote on January 26, 2008 5:13 PM:

The Clinton side absolutely did not

dcshungu wrote on January 26, 2008 5:18 PM:

Josh Marshall:

I hear from a lot of Obama supporters that that [hardball politics] may be how it's been. But Obama is about the 'new politics'. But this is no different from what Bill Bradley was saying in 2000. And it was as bogus then as it is now. Beyond that there is an undeniable undercurrent in what you hear from Obama supporters that he is too precious a plant -- a generational opportunity for a transformative presidency -- to be submitted to this sort of knockabout political treatment. That strikes me as silly and arrogant, if for no other reason that the Republicans will not step aside for Obama's transcendence either.

I am pleased that he has not drunk the kool-aid...

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 5:22 PM:

Seriously, Obama didn't say anything about the MLK comment, a few people outside his campaign did

Wasn't there an internal Obama campaign memo that included the King comment in a list of (supposedly) racially insensitive things the Clinton campaign had done or said?

Killjoy wrote on January 26, 2008 5:24 PM:

frankly0, if you weren't so fundamentally dishonest in your support of Hillary Clinton I might ask you for your opinion of why she gets so much support from obvious race-baiters. Furthermore, citing BET's Robert Johnson as evidence of Hillary Clinton's support from the black community really shows how little you understand how her comments, her husband's comments, her campaign's comments and her supporters' comments have played in the aforementioned community.

Trickster wrote on January 26, 2008 5:42 PM:

We dial it up, we dial it down...as required depending on the upcoming primaries.

Thank you. It seems more than a trifle coincidential to me that Obama calls to dial back the race stuff precisely as South Carolinians have already gone to the polls and when we are turning to a set of elections in states most of which have a tiny-to-small African-American sector of the electorate.

The ORLY Factor wrote on January 26, 2008 5:56 PM:

TPM's Greg Sargent: Obama supporters are ruining the Interwebs!

O NOES!

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:31 PM:

blackstar said at 12:25 PM

... but Greg [Sargent], why does Hillary's "fact hub" have links to your blog and posts in EC; the only blog-based news site thus referenced?
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

And

Greg Sargent spun at 12:29 PM:
"blackstar, all the campaigns routinely send out releases and research with quotes from a whole range of news sources and blogs -- all the campaigns have quoted us at one time or another. reading anything into that is a massive stretch, to put it charitably"

In truth, as anyone who follows TPM/EC recognizes, Greg Sargent is a Hillary for President operative. By his selections, omissions, headlines, innuendo, and direct balantant Clintonesque distotions, he advances Hillary's cause.

Blackstar, congratulations for the smoking gun. Sargent channels what Hillary's campaign wants to appear here, adds their spin, and then his posts are linked by the campaign to show what an "independent" source is saying. It is shameless and TPM will suffer long term for allowing the Clinton agenda to shape its coverage of this nation-at-a-crossroads campaign.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 6:47 PM:

Greg Sargent said "...one of the really strange things about the tiny minority of Obama supporters who are ruining blog comment sections throughout the blogosphere is this: They are simply never satisfied."

First, all the cirtics of your intense Hillary bias are not Obama supporters. Some of us simply want a fair, civil, substantive election. Your characterization of your detractors as "Obama supporters" is more evidence of the bias.

Frankly, I have never in my long Democratic life seen anything to compare to the dishonesty, meanness, recklessness f Hillary's campaign, NOTHING. And I have seen nothing on other Comment boards to compare to the nasty, bullying Hillary attack dogs on this site. And finally, I have seen on no other blog that even pretends objectivity the type of bias that comes from EC.

Don't blame criticism of EC's balance on Obama.

Mary wrote on January 26, 2008 7:58 PM:

With all due respect, while Obama was playing like he was "above it all," his campaign staff was faxing angry racist trash talk to the media, who LOVED stirring it up. Obama's staff FED the we-hate-Hillary frenzy, and did it knowingly.

But you can thank Obama's staff for USING the racial issue to pump the South Carolina vote.

Now....we'll see if Hispanics in the West will vote for Obama.

If not, he's not the right candidate for the Democratic Party.

Mike wrote on January 27, 2008 3:10 AM:

devicesreviews.info/
exercisesreviews.info/
patchesreviews.info/
pillsreviews.info/
topdevices.info/
topexercises.info/
toppatches.info/
toppenispills.info/
bestdevices.info/
bestexercises.info/
bestpatches.info/
bestofpills.info/
penisenlargement-device.info/
penisenlargement-exercise.info/
penisenlargement-patch.info/
penisenlargement-pill.info/
bestpenisstretcher.info/
bestextenders.info/
penisenlargement-scam.info/
penisenlargement-guide.info/
penisenlargement-studies.info/
penisenlargement-methods.info/
penisenlargement-secrets.info/
homemadepenisenlargement.info/
penisenlargement-techniques.info/
penisenlargement-tips.info/
howtomeasurepenis.info/
penissizesurvey.info/
attractwoman.info/
breastenlargementreviews.info/
besthairremover.info/
antiagingreviews.info/
quitsmokingreviews.info/
topskincare.info/
bestweightlossreviews.info/
bestsemenenhancer.info/
mensarticles.com/
weightlossdietguides.info/
solutionforweightloss.info/
bestforweightloss.info/
tipsonweightloss.info/
tipsonskincare.info/
naturalskincaresolutions.info/
tipsonacne.info/
facialskincaretips.info/
skincareadvise.info/
fastsizereview.info/
sizegeneticsreview.info/
sizeprosystemreview.info/
proextendersystemreview.info/
penishealthreview.info/
penisenlargementjelqing.info/
proenhancereview.info/
prosolutionpillsreview.info/
vigrxplusreview.info/
penisenlargementdrugs.info/
penisenlargementtablets.info/
penisenlargementherbal.info/
penisenlargement-surgery.info/
penisenlargementhypnosis.info/
penisenlargementcreams.info/
penisenlargement-pump.info/
penisenlargement-forum.info/
penissizedebate.info/
volumepillsreview.info/
proactolweightlossreview.info/
fengshuitipsforyou.info/
ae4kidsteens.com/
ae4women.com/
aeoartsentertainment.com/
aeoautomotive.com/
aeobeauty.com/
aeobusiness.com/
aeocareer.com/
aeocommunications.com/
aeocomputer.com/
aeodating.com/
aeoeducation.com/
aeoelectronics.com/
aeofengshui.com/
aeofinance.com/
aeofitness.com/
aeofooddrink.com/
aeogaming.com/
aeohomefamily.com/
aeohomeimprovement.com/
aeoinsurance.com/
aeointernet.com/
aeolegal.com/
aeomenshealth.com/
aeopets.com/
aeorealestate.com/
aeorecreationsports.com/
aeoselfimprovement.com/
aeoshopping.com/
aeotravel.com/
aeoweightloss.com/
aeowomenhealth.com/
aeopenis.com/

SciVo wrote on January 27, 2008 1:21 PM:

As an Obama supporter, I greatly disliked Bob Herbert's column. He's not doing Obama any favors by fanning the flames on that crap -- and he should know better.

A major point of his column is that putting crap out there and setting it on fire helps Clinton and hurts Obama. Is he really so unself-aware as to not realize that the column itself is an example of the problem that it's explaining?

I kind of feel bad for Obama. With supporters like that, who needs opponents?

P.S. It's cute how closely you hew to Clinton campaign talking points, but it just hurts your credibility when you say that Herbert "used a single anonymous racist blog posting to bash Bill and Hillary as gleeful about racism," since anyone can read the column for themselves and see that you're wrong. It's quite obvious in both wording and context that he used a single unattributed religiously prejudiced blog comment to show the result of efforts to associate Obama with Islam in people's minds.

Your portrayal is simply not accurate. It might've started as innocent selective perception, but as this has already been very clearly pointed out and explained to you several times, there's no explanation that I can see at this point except intentionality or sheer laziness.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)